Everyone wants to use systems beyond their design points. Or rather, more accurately, the design point is *always* the cheapest way to accomplish a goal, and that's a moving target.

If you are a company that provides an embedded system with a known functionality that requires a specific amount of RAM, and you realize you can ship that system with less RAM because you of CRAM or ZRAM, you just decreased your costs and increased your margin. There is literally no embedded provider that wouldn't be looking at that.

I can, however, tell you that you don't understand what science is, or how it functions.

It has not. In fact, the criticism against string theory is *precisely that it is pretty much impossible to debunk* because you've got so may parameters to mess with that you can make just about anything work with string theory. It's a bit like overfitting: if you want to find an equation that perfectly fits your 10,000 data points, you can certainly give a polynomial of order 9,999. Is that going to accurately model the mechanism that caused the data points you gathered, or be a good predictor for additional sampling? Not necessarily. You've overfitted the crap out of your model, it behaves weirdly between the points, it treats random noise or outliers as deterministic and valid, etc.

Is this what's going on with string theory? Maybe. It could also be that it's right. It's *really hard* to come up with an experiment that could falsify it with the technology we currently have. Does that by itself mean it's wrong and we should give up on it? No. Does that mean we should also be looking at other avenues? Yes. And we are, there are plenty of physicists who work with alternative theories and are vocal critics of string theory.

There is no person that holds that belief that isn't a moron. You included, thank you for outing yourself. I won't respond to any more of your responses, because I do know that debating idiots like you is like playing chess with a pigeon: You knock the pieces down, shit on the board, and strut around like you've won. I'll continue answering your post for anyone else who cares to read so they can understand WHY you're an idiot, but I don't really care about your opinion.

1. 1. Anything that is rigorous is real science. It's not defined as useful to you right now. Anything we discover, whether the path we're going down ends up being correct or not, is valuable.
2. 2. I'll let Angela Collier, who, btw, *also* does not like String Theory and happens to agree with you that it was a waste of time, tell you about many of the exciting discoveries made in physics over the past 70 years. I'm not even going to address the point you said "scientists" in general, as in, making the claim that ALL science has apparently been a standstill for decades, where the world I live in today is barely fucking recognizable compared to the world I lived in 20 years ago. I don't mean just in technology, I mean in terms of what we know. My god, we have NEVER been in a time that is more prolific than the time we live in right now, whatever you're learning in school will be outdated by the time you leave college, will be outdated by the time you get a graduate degree. If you're not learning while you work, you're a dinosaur and your job is at risk. The world of science today moves FAST.

Maths masturbation is *great* and we need more of it. This is one of the problems with Sabine: she likes to go, "it's just math." Buddy, If it's not rigorous math, it's not worth anything, if it is rigorous math, and it doesn't match reality, the paper it was written on is still worth its weight in gold. Do you like the world you live in with online baking and secure encryption? Thank all the mathematicians of old doing number theory for the sake of it, finding properties of prime numbers and elliptical curves. Einstein didn't like Minkowski's use of a four-dimensional spacetime to frame his special theory of relativity and then he learned it turned out to be super useful, and embraced geometry when developing his general theory of relativity, and embraced something else that essentially had no use outside of pure mathematics at that time: tensors.

If (and I do mean if, because like I said, it hasn't been 'debunked' as you claim) String Theory turns out to be COMPLETELY wrong, all the work done in it will be useful to advance what we discover is right.

You and Weinstein need to engage in a little bit more of "Maths Masturbation". Especially considering his "geometric unity" theory doesn't have enough math in it to be a rigors theory. He should get on that.

Roger Penrose is a brilliant man whom I highly respect, who happens to disagree with String Theory and actually most of the direction that any quantum theory of gravity tends to go towards. Most physicists want to quantize gravity, he thinks they should instead be trying to explain quantum physics in relativistic terms. Now, he's in the minority with that claim, but he could be right, and I appreciate that someone is making strides toward that. Although he often uses strong language to disagree with, I *seriously* doubt he would say the people working with it have "wasted their time" or aren't doing "real science."

I also want to point out Sabine is pretty critical of CCC, Penrose's theory he hopes will replace the inflationary model. Because Sabine, isn't trying to propose alternatives. She pretty much goes, "I think string theory has go nowhere, oh well. Let's just not study it or any alternatives anymore, lest we do any math masturbation." That's not science. Creating hypothesis, making the theory rigorous, and testing predictions is the job.

And those corrections require atomic clocks.

You think LLMs would write "Slashdot doesn't have table support, so it's hard to do side-by-side well, but:"? You think LLMs like writing sentences that end in conjunctions that express incomplete thoughts? Do you think LLMs write "high frequences", "naively pairs", call H.265 X.265 (I was thinking of what you refer to it as in ffmpeg), imbalanced parens after "lacks motion vectors",etc?

Don't get me wrong, I am a LLM user, I absolutely do use it sometimes for search, fact checking things I'm writing, spelling/grammar checks (clearly not that time, lol), etc. But I write my own posts.

Ubiquitous: existing or being everywhere at the same time; constantly encountered.
Windows: holds 76.36% of the worldwide desktop operating system market
HEIC on Windows: Microsoft Store HEVC Video Extension costs $0.99

Yeah, no. Yes, it's present on Apple devices. And admittedly there are about as many iPhones as Windows computers. But that's still half, and it's not the important half where actual work is generally done. It's the half where annoying people take pictures and send them to people that need to jump through hoops to do anything with them.

The real killer app for AI will be when someone creates an AI that grovels over all the millions of low-effort AI slop games out there and flags just the interesting/fun/novel ones for your attention. Otherwise you'll never find the gems amongst all the dross.

Slashdot doesn't have table support, so it's hard to do side-by-side well, but:

JPEG XL advantages:

Licensing:

JPEG XL: Fully royalty-free (Open source / Apache 2.0)
HEIC: Proprietary patent minefield (MPEG LA, Advance, Velos; royalties apply)

Legacy JPEG Migration:

JPEG XL: Lossless, reversible bitstream transcoding (~20% smaller); fast enough for real-time web servers
HEIC: Lossy re-encode only (generational quality loss; cannot reconstruct original JPEG)

Fine Detail & Textures

JPEG XL: Retains sharp text, fine lines, subtle textures, and film grain
HEIC: Video-derived coding (HEVC / X.265). Tends to smooth out high frequences and smudge grain.

Software Encoding Speed

JPEG XL: Extremely fast; highly parallelized SIMD architecture
HEIC: Exceptionally slow and computationally expensive in software

Software Decoding Speed

JPEG XL: Fast, lightweight multi-threaded CPU decoding
HEIC: Heavy CPU overhead (without using hardware acceleration)

Progressive Rendering:

JPEG XL: True progressive decode; smart saliency algorithm to focus bandwidth on critical details first.
HEIC: None; full file must be received and decoded before display

Lossless Compression
JPEG XL: Dedicated modular mode; vastly outperforms PNG and WebP
HEIC: Ill-suited; you basically have to try to do lossless compression with an inherently-lossy format

Bit Depth & HDR

JPEG XL: Native HDR; up to 32-bit floating point per channel
HEIC: Typically capped at 10-bit or 12-bit integer

Max Dimensions & Scaling

JPEG XL: Up to 1B x 1B; efficient viewport/crop loading without full decoding
HEIC: v5.2, 4096x2160; v6.2: 8192x4320; a tiling hack allows up to 16384 x 16384

Channels & Color Spaces:

JPEG XL: Arbitrary color spaces (hyperspectral); unlimited extra channels (alpha, depth, thermal, masks, CMYK, etc)
HEIC: Rigid container; limited auxiliary channels and standard video color spaces

HEIC advantages:

Rollout / acceleration:

JPEG XL: no dedicated hardware acceleration (thankfully, it's not as important because it's so much more efficient). Software adoption still rolling out.
HEIC: Hardware silicon (ASICs). Default capture format on modern iOS/Android; native capture in Sony, Canon, and Nikon cameras

Video:

JPEG XL: Supports animations (GIF/APNG replacement), with some optimizations** (it's not just a series of stills), but lacks the full set of optimizations that a proper video codec has.
HEIC: Container naively pairs full HEVC video tracks and audio with video.

** - JPEG XL can store up to 4 reference frames in a buffer, with multiple blending modes from the references (add, replace, multiply, etc); has subframe bounding boxes ("dirty rectangles") for when only part of a frame changes; invisible frames; modular deltas (differences between frames); etc. However, it lacks motion vectors (e.g. detecting a feature drifting across a scene and simply having to encode "move it" (followed by any needed deltas). So it's great for "GIFs", but if you wanted to encode a full movie, it'd be significantly larger than e.g. HEVC.

Look, I use HEIC, but JPEG-XL is just better.

* Royalty-free
* Lossless transcoding of legacy JPEGs to immediately reduce their sizes by ~20% (fast enough that you can have webservers do it in realtime)
* Better fine detail / high frequency data representation for the same bitrate. HEIC was designed for video and simply is not as good at stills.
* Faster decoding
* MUCH faster compression
* True progressive decoding - and not old-school blocky progressive decoding, but using a smart algorithm that restores coarse detail (particularly focusing on parts of the image that the eyes immediately focus on) first, then progressively adding in finer detail that the eyes take more time to notice later.
* Vastly better lossless compression
* Better colour depth and native HDR (up to 32 bit per channel)
* Up to 1B x 1B pixel images (again, useful for scientific and engineering applications), with efficient loading (don't have to load and decode the whole 1B x 1B image at full resolution to view it)
* Arbitrary colour spaces - you can even use it for scientific hyperspectral imaging. You can include e.g. alpha, depth maps, thermal data, selection masks, etc etc.

It's just a better format for stills. It's annoying that it's taken this long to get support to take off (because it takes ages for most people to update their browsers), but I'm really glad that it's starting to.

The need for them came from relativity, but the atomic clocks needed to be able to handle such fine corrections are based on the hyperfine transition of 133Cs. You're not getting very far on atomic clocks without particle physics

Okay Felicia.

Quoting Sabine Hossenfelder as anything just outs you as anti-science. She has pivoted years ago to making videos that stir the pot of controversy, aiming at those who don't like "academics". If you want any proof of that claim, you can check out her video saying that Physicists are afraid of Eric Weinstein. Eric Weinstein has a bulshit "geometric unity" theories thoroughly debunked, where it's not even that he can't get published: he doesn't *want* to get published, claims in his copyright notice for that paper that it's for "entertainment only" and requires his express permission to write any papers that build upon what he has written: so you technically can't publish a paper debunking without violating his copyright, if anyone actually *cared* to, because physicists that have looked at it like Sean Carroll pointed out his paper isn't rigorous enough to say anything testable.

She allies herself with quacks to get views, and you're falling for her bs.

Sounds like Newton. Long tradition, I guess

"Okay, nuclear power. Yeah. Yeah, they did give us that. That's true. "

"And industrial-scale superconducting magnets!"

"Don't forget GPS satellite relativistic corrections!"

"And radioisotope therapy!"

"Electron beam therapy?"

"World Wide Web, wasn't that created by particle physicists?"

"Yeah, they did do that."

"Capacitative touchscreens too, you know."

"All right, all right, FAIR ENOUGH! But APART from computers, telecommunications, nuclear power, PET scans, MRIs, satellite communications, superconductors, radioisotope therapy, electron beam therapy, heat-shrink tubing, cargo and baggage screening, smoke detectors, muon tomography, capacitative touchscreens, and the World Wide Web, WHAT HAS PARTICLE PHYSICS EVER DONE FOR US?!"

"Synchrotron light sources for drug discovery?"

"Oh, drug discovery?! GROW UP!"

Yeah, what has a better understanding of particle physics ever done for US, huh??? ... ...

_ ...........

if this were true it would not be possible for the system to read the watermark.

You confuse "invisible to humans" with "invisible to statistical analysis". Humans can't, for example, see the difference between metameric colours. Statistical analysis can. Humans can't see minor drift at scales where Brownian motion dominates. Statistical analysis can. Humans can't see the difference between background disease rates and new rising threats. Statistical analysis can. On and on. Statistical analysis is a far more powerful tool than human perceptual abilities.

this is also a lie. Identical thoughts must be expressed identically, otherwise they are, in fact, *different* thoughts.

I literally gave an example above. If you saw "picked a mango", "selected and picked a mango", "from within the tree, picked a mango", you would never think there was anything going on in the choice, and it isn't going to change the story one iota.